<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Learning To Simulate · HackerPapers discussions</title><link>https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1810.02513/</link><description>Collected HN comments and submissions linking this paper.</description><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Nov 2026 11:16:22 GMT</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1810.02513/feed.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><item><title>Learning To Simulate — mentioned by pinouchon</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21664515</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:1810.02513:21664515</guid><pubDate>Fri, 29 Nov 2019 14:18:45 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;I use a supervised learning setup (although with a custom loss function). The kind of data augmentation I do is adding different candles sizes. I validate with 5m candles, but I train with 2,3,4,5,6,7m ones. I also sample more frequently more recent data. I train jointly with ~22 symbols, but in each X with those symbols, I randomly set some to 0, some I invert their price, some I invert time-wise. This helps generalization for some reason. I tried many kinds of noise, but what I described above is what I found to work best in my case. I have a more ambitious idea to generate synthetic data…&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1810.02513/"&gt;Paper and discussion history&lt;/a&gt;. A mention is not an endorsement.&lt;/p&gt;</description><category>cs.LG</category></item></channel></rss>
